14-2127 Rullan v. New York City Sanitation Dep’t 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JA NUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 18 th day of June, two thousand fifteen. 3 4 PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, 5 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 6 Circuit Judges, 7 WILLIAM K. SESSIONS, III, * 8 District Judge. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 Juan Rullan, 12 13 Plaintiff-Appellant , 14 15 v. 14-2127 16 17 New York City Sanitation Department, 18 19 Defendant-Appellee . 20 21

_____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Juan Rullan, pro se, Bronx, NY. 25 26 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Pamela Seider Dolgow, Elizabeth S. Natrella, of 27 counsel, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation 28 Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY. 29

* Judge William K. Sessions, III, of the United St ates District Court of Vermont, sitting by designation.2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the Southern District of 1 New York (Koeltl, J .). 2
* * * 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. 5 Appellant Juan Rullan, proceeding pro se , appeals the district c ourt’s judgment dismissing 6 his claims of employment discrimination and retaliat ion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 7 Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. , and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 8 § 12102, et seq. (“ADA”), and failure to accommodate unde r the ADA as barred by the principles 9 of res judicata and collateral est oppel and as insufficient to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ fam iliarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 11 history of the case, a nd the issues on appeal. 12 We review de novo a district court’s application of res judicata and collateral estoppel 13 principles, Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. , 126 F.3d 365, 368 (2d Cir. 1997), and its 14 dismissal for failure to state a claim, Lucas v. United States , 775 F.3d 544, 547 (2d Cir. 2015) (per 15 curiam). As an initial matter, because Rullan does not challenge on appeal any of the grounds on 16 which the district court dismissed his complaint, those claims are abandoned . See LoSacco v. City 17 of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding, in the context of a pro se appeal, that 18 issues not raised in an appellate brief are abandoned). Even if Rullan had preserved any issues for 19 appeal, however, an independent revi ew of the record and relevant ca se law reveals that the district 20 court properly dismissed his claims. 21
223 We have considered all of Rullan’s argumen ts and find them to be without merit. 23 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 24
25 FOR THE COURT: 26 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 27